Should theistic evolutionists
take the lead in publicly
defending evolution? Shelly
Gottlieb gets to the heart of the
matter when he says that the
answer depends on "what one is
trying to accomplish". However, I
do not fully agree with the choices
he offers. One possibility he proposes
is "to demonstrate to the
public at large that it is possible to
be a 'believer' and still 'believe in'
(as opposed to accept based on
evidence) evolution"; the other is
"educating the 'undecided' group
to the importance and power of
natural explanations of natural
phenomena."

Instead, what I would like to
demonstrate to the public is that
one can be a religious believer and
still accept evolution based on evidence
(as opposed to "belief").
Now, if that somehow helps convince
them of the power of natural
explanations, fine; but that's not
my main goal, nor is it necessarily
very relevant to the creation-evolution
dispute. As Erik Pietrowicz
correctly notes, "The public is not
generally concerned with making
the distinction between scientific
evidence and religious belief."
Generally, they want to make sense
of their existence and find meaning
in their lives. Fundamentalists
offer them explanations that cannot
be reconciled with modern science,
and rubbing that fact in just
makes them more uncomfortable.
If we see our job (especially outside
the classroom) as only being
to "educate" the public about the
ways of science, we are ignoring
what our audience sees as important.
That is what I would call self-defeating.
Evolutionists have been
doing that in debates with creationists
for forty years and more — and look where it has gotten us.

Gottlieb argues that theistic evolution
"opens science to the criticism
that science is not really free
of the supernatural but that it tolerates (respects) supernaturalism."
Actually, this should not describe
science, but rather scientists
(except for the openly intolerant
ones). As Keith Miller says, "while
science as a discipline is religiously
neutral, individual scientists are
not. We each live out our scientific
vocations within a broader context."
We were all born human before we were trained in science,
and we did not check our humanity
at the door of the laboratory.We
did not forfeit our right to believe
in the supernatural, or our civic
duty to respect those who do. If we
had done so, we would be less than
fully human, and even more alienated
from our non-scientist fellow
citizens. (We Catholics used to have
a saying: "Error has no rights."
Fortunately, it was abandoned as
church policy almost half a century
ago, when a different view prevailed:
"People have rights, even
people who are in error!")

If, on the contrary, we want to
communicate with the public and
persuade them (and we have to do
this to make our schools safe for
science), then we need to use that
non-scientist part of ourselves,
along with our scientific training.
We who are believers need to be
role models who prove the theological
neutrality of science, by
showing that believers can be just
as comfortable with Darwinism as
atheists are. And when fundamentalists
question the quality of our
belief, we have to be able to
defend it, along with our approach
to interpreting the Bible and our
overall worldview.

Pietrowicz poses the related
question: If and when religion and
science clash in the minds of students,
how should the instructor
respond? Certainly not by
demanding that they "believe in"
evolution in order to pass (though
they can be required to learn the
evidence presented even if they
do not buy the interpretation). But
I see nothing wrong with also saying
something like "Hey, I'm a
Christian too, but I don't have a
problem with evolution. If you
want, we can discuss that sometime
outside of class." In many
cases, that would pique the curiosity
of students on both sides of the
issue, and might lead to a fruitful,
even enjoyable off-campus bull
session. The key is to avoid
pugnacity, defensiveness, or
putting students down: respect
really pays off and is part of what
we should be teaching, in addition
to the science.

In such a conversation about
beliefs (with questioning students
or committed fundamentalists),
most scientists who are not believers
will quickly find themselves
tongue-tied, reduced to sputtering
impotence or insufferable arrogance
— neither response will be
very persuasive. Not all fundamentalists
are ignorant, or intellectual
pushovers. The sincere ones have
serious concerns that deserve serious
responses. Explaining how science
differs from religion may be a
good start, but it does not get us all
the way to explaining the meaning
of life. Scientists who are unwilling
or unable to go beyond science in
order to defend science must face
the fact that they cannot reach
many of the people who need to
be reached.

Committed atheists, in particular,
have to decide which they care
about more: making our schools
safe for evolution, or ridding the
world of religion. The latter,
whether desirable or not, is
emphatically not a prerequisite to
achieving the former; and in any
case, trying to do both at once just
inflames the controversy and alienates
religionists who are the atheists'
potential allies in supporting
good science. This does not help
the cause of science education.